Subject: Re: next steps related to bridging

From: "Hattig, Myron" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 08:43:43 -0800

Kaz,

I appreciate your comments and sentiment. I would like
to understand whether your concern is actually with
the loss of ownership or a slip in the schedule.

Thanks,

-myron

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kaz Honda [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, December 17, 1998 1:22 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: next steps related to bridging
>
>
> "Hattig, Myron" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> >
> > My opinion is the IP/1394 should follow the necessary
> > steps to support GASP and move the NPM/NETWORK_CHANNELs
> > functionality to p1394.a to provide a general purpose 1394
> > broadcast mechanism.
>
> I strongly disagree. This WG was organized in summer 1997 and since
> then we've made some efforts to standardize how to send IP datagram
> over 1394. NPM/NETWORK_CHANNELs are part of our efforts and are
> invented for the purpose of IP1394. If other standardizing bodies want
> to generalize them, they can do whatever they want. But we should not
> be affected by this.
>
> If they want to generalize our outcome, all they have to do is make
> reference to our specs. Period.
>
> We've already done the interoperability test to verify the
> NPM/NETWORK_CHANNELs that we defined works well. I don't see any
> reason that p1394.a people need any modification. Nevertheless, why do
> we have to pass our control to p1394.a?  Why do we have to wait until
> p1394.a generalizes our outcome?
>
> Anyway, I don't want to delay standardizing IP/1394 spec any longer.
>
> --
> Kaz Honda <[email-masked]>
> R&D Dept., ITC                   Fone: +81-3-5448-8401
> Sony Corporation                 Phax: +81-3-5448-8977
>

---

From: Kaz Honda <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 18:31:36 +0900

> the loss of ownership or a slip in the schedule.

My concern is both.

If we lose the ownership(or control) of the NPM/NETWORK_CHANNEL, there
is a chance for p1394a folks to modify it. On the other hand, the NPM
is a foundamental element for IP1394. If the NPM is modified, IP1394
spec must be reconsidered again to fit the modified NPM. That means
IETF WG has to wait until p1394a is finalized.

When will p1394a spec be finalized?
When will IETF be able to submit I-D to the IESG?

If we surely can submit I-D to the IESG in the very near future, no
problem. But who knows?

If p1394a folks just try to include the NPM with no modification into
the spec, then it is okay with me because IETF WG can move forward
independently. This does not cause any delay of schedule. In this
sense, I don't mind if we pass the ownership/control of the
NPM/NETWORK_CHANNEL to p1394a.

As for GASP header, I don't care about it very much, because we can
regard our current IP1394 spec as bridge-unaware spec. When
1394-bridge emerges to the market, we'll simply obsolete the
current spec and create the new one. We can cross that bridge when we
come to it. :-p
Again, if p1394a spec will be finalized so soon, and it will not
affect our schedule to submit I-D, I'm happy with that.